The Ordination of Women: To
Nurture Tradition by Continuing Inculturation(1)

by Kari Elisabeth Børresen

After
thirty years of research in patristic and medieval theology with focus on
gender models, I consider womens ordination to the priesthood a critical
test case for the recognition of womens fully human
Godlikeness.

The
attribution of creational imago Dei to female humanity as such is
a very recent phenomenon in the history of Christian doctrine. This
20th-century accommodation to post-patriarchal culture in Western Europe and
North America is here so successful that womens creation in Gods
image is often believed to be stated already in biblical texts! In fact,
such innovative exegesis builds upon what I call patristic
feminism, initiated by Clement of Alexandria and elaborated by Augustine.
In the early stage of Christianity, womens salvational equivalence was
realized by attaining perfect manhood in Christ, i.e. by becoming
male. From the 3rd to the 5th century, this andromorphic privilege was
backdated to creation by defining Gods image as asexual, so that
women were considered to be Godlike despite their non-theomorphic
femaleness. The patristic innovation of sexless imago Dei influenced
medieval exegesis, persisting through the Renaissance, Reformation and modern
periods.(2)

Nevertheless, the previous definition of mens exclusive
Godlikeness in the order of creation still survives in traditional new Adam-new
Eve typology. Androcentric gender asymmetry is here transposed from the first
human couple to the order of salvation. Godlike Adam prefigures Christ, who as
new Adam and divine Redeemer is incarnated in perfect manhood. Non-Godlike Eve
prefigures the church/Mary, who as new Eve represents dependent and therefore
gynecomorphic humanity. These theological gender models remain fundamental in
both Orthodox and Catholic Christology, ecclesiology and Mariology, being
invoked as prime obstacles to womens ordination.

In
consequence, the present deadlock suffered in the non-Protestant majority of
Christendom, by refusing to ordain women, results from the simultaneous
upholding of two, mutually exclusive, doctrinal tenets: Early
androcentric typology on the one hand, 20th-century holistic Godlike-ness on
the other.(3) To formulate the problem succinctly: Godlike women are deemed
unfit to be Christlike priests. I find it important to stress that such logical
inconsistency is a new feature of Christian doctrine; until a few decades ago,
creational gender hierarchy was consistently defined as Godwilled, unharmed by
womens asexual imago Dei. Before the 19th century, the concept of
theomorphic femaleness was unthinkable, a contradiction in terms since
traditional God-language excludes the female from the Godhead.(4) In fact, the
question of ordaining women qua fully Godlike female human beings was
first raised about 50 years ago. The more or less heretical women
priests loosely featured in church history, (occurrence among Cathars,
Waldenses and Lollards remains unproved), have eventually functioned despite
their femaleness, thus making de-feminized salvational equality with men
operative already in this world,

Correspondingly, traditional arguments against womens ordination
presuppose creational gender hierarchy as normative both in church and society.
When this harmonious theo-sociological pattern is disrupted by the current
collapse of androcentric culture in the Western world, conclusions are
conserved in spite of discarded premises. Without acknowledging the
superseded rationale of male Godlikeness, typological gender models now
serve as last resort both in Catholic and Orthodox debate.

From
my standpoint as a Catholic feminist theologian, I believe the ensuing
blockage, where ecclesiastical establishments raise barriers between women and
God, can be overcome by following the church Fathers intent. They
strove to insert women in a religious system where femaleness was either absent
or alien. The gradual inclusion of females in fully Godlike humanity, as
realized by interpretation of Scripture through Christian tradition, provides
an exemplary model of continuing inculturation.(5)

II.
Inculturated Tradition

In
fact, 20th-century biblical interpretation applies three inclusive strategies,
all of which are inherited from patristic exegesis: 1. The sexual
differentiation expressed in Gen. l:27b, male and female he created
them, is disconnected from the subsequent blessing of fertility in
Gen. 1:28 and linked to the preceding image text of Gen. l:26-27a;
Let us make Adam (collective male) in our image, according to our
likeness ... and God created Adam in his image, in the image of God he created
him. 2. Pauls argument for mens exclusive Godlikeness in I
Cor. 11:7: For man should not cover his head, since he is the image and
glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, is veiled. In
context, Gen. l:26-27a is here combined with Gods formation of Adam from
clods in the soil and blowing into his nostrils the breath of life, according
to Gen. 2:7. In I Cor. 11:8, Paul asserts mans theomorphic precedence in
terms of womans derivative formation of Adams rib, as an aid
fit for him, according to Gen. 2:18,21-23.3 The negating citation
of Gen. l:27b in Gal. 3:28: there is not male and female, for you are all
one (collective male) in Christ, is interpreted as including women
instead of abolishing female-ness. It is of note that this text presents
a mixture of reverting to creational perfection, defined as presexual,
and salvational attainment of Christlike sonship in male
wholeness.

Christianity starts from what I call redemptional
democracy, where both men and women are saved in Christ. Since
Gods Son is incarnated in perfect humanity, i.e. male Godlikeness,
womens equality in the order of salvation implies that they achieve
Christlike maleness, as expressed in Eph. 4:13: until we all
arrive at the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure and the stature of the fullness of Christ.
This early Christian theme of becoming male as a prerequisite to,
and consequence of, redemptive conformity with the new Adam, Christ, is
succinctly verbalized in the last logion, 114, of the Gospel of Thomas
(ca. 150 or earlier):

Simon Peter said to them, Let Mary (Magdalene) leave us, for
women are not worthy of Life. Jesus said, I myself shall lead her
in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit (cf. Gen.
2,7) resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter
the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sometimes disregarded as more or less heterodox, the motif
of woman transformed into man is fundamentally Christocentric,
combining divine Sonship and Godlike manhood. In fact, this theme is found more
often in Christian than in Gnostic sources.(6)

Early
theological anthropology defines the first human male as Godlike prototype by
combining Gen. l:26-27a and Gen. 2:7. The creation of Eve, according to Gen.
2:18,21-23, is regularly linked to the fertility blessing of Gen. 1:28 and
not to theomorphic privilege. The traditional Adam-Christ typology
starts from Rom. 5:14: Adam, who is a type (typos) of the coming
Christ. The correlated nuptial symbolism of Christ-church in Eph. 5:32,
cf. H Cor. 11:2, is by Justin (died ca. 165), Irenaeus (died ca. 200),
Tertullian (died ca. 220) and Ambrose (died 397) amplified in terms of a
salvational couple: Christ/new Adam - Mary/church/ new Eve. Theomorphic
maleness is here a self-evident premise, with corollary exclusion of femaleness
at the divine level. It is essential to note that this gender hierarchy,
transposed to the order of salvation, aggravates the subordination of Eve as
made after, from and for Adam. The first human pair
consists of one autonomous and one derived partner, but both are created
beings. In contrast the redemptive couple features a divinely supreme Lord and
humanity as his submissive bride. When Eves inferior femaleness serves as
simile for human dependency of divine omnipotence, womens creationally
sub-male status is strongly reinforced.

Since
womens achievement of theomorphic humanity is reserved for the
salvational order, by transformation into Christlike manhood, this theme is
inapplicable as an inclusive device already from creation. Given the
basic Judaeo-Christian incompatibility of Godhead and femaleness, the
innovative patristic move from an exclusively redemptional God-likeness to an
imago Dei attributable to women in the creational order, is realized by
asexual definition of theomorphic privilege. Gods image is here
connected to the spiritual and rational human soul, considered to be sexless.
This stratagem is invented by Clement of Alexandria (died ca. 215). He is
the first author I have found who connects Gen. l;27b to the preceding
image text of Gen. l:26-27a, in order to include women within Godlike humanity
from initial creation. Clement equally initiates what I call the feminist
falsification of Gal. 3:28, using the texts pre-sexual element to
ensure womens theomorphic privilege. Nevertheless, the fundamental
incompatibility of Godhead and femaleness remains unchallenged by this
genderfree definition of Gods image, correlated with the metasexual
concept of divinity. In consequence, Godlikeness is attributed to women
despite inferior womanhood, so that creational gender hierarchy persists
as Godwilled norm for church and society.(7)

Augustine (died 430) is the first author who directly confronts
I Cor. 11:7, affirming that women too are created in Gods
image.(8) It is of note that patristic exegesis always understands this text as
literally stating mens exclusive Godlikeness. Augustines
exegetical dilemma results from his inclusive interpretation of theomorphic
humanity, which follows Clements connection of Gen. l:26-27a and
27b. Refusing to accept the Pauline denial of womens imago Dei,
Augustine takes refuge in allegorical exegesis. Consequently, I Cor. 11:7 is
neutralized by interpreting Pauls mulier in the sense of lower
human reason, which is not Godlike, whereas higher human
reason is figured by Pauls Godlike vir. Augustines main
proof-text is here Gal. 3:28, correctly understood in its combined presexual
and andromorphic equality, but even more illogi-cally used than by Clement.
Augustine invokes the negating citation of Gen. l:27b in order to
include mulier as Godlike by attaching homo of Gen. l:27-27a to
femina of 27b.(9) The traditional incoherence between Godhead and
femaleness remains basic in this inclusive definition of imago Dei in
manlike disguise. In fact, Augustines argumentation sharpens the ensuing
conflict between womens rational Godlikeness and their inferior
femaleness. This split between Gods image and human gender is absent in
men, since their creationally superior maleness reflects theomorphic
excellence. It follows that Augustines predating of womens
salvational imago Dei to the order of creation dissociates
spiritual equality from female subservience, thereby legitimating womens
subordination in church and society as divinely ordained.(10)

This
strenuous insertion of sub-male women in Godlike humanity reappears in the
discussion at the provincial synod in Mâcon (585), reported by Gregory of
Tours (died 594). The episcopal majority voting in favour of defining
femina/mulier as homo refers to the Augustinian linkage of Gen.
l:26-27a and 27b.(11) In contrast, medieval interpretation is influenced by the
unveiled androcentric exegesis of so-called Ambrosiaster, regrettably
transmitted as though it were written by Ambrose or Augustine.(12) Active in
Rome around 370-380, this unidentified author emphasizes womens lack of
creational Godlikeness, drawing explicitly on I Cor. 11:7. Ambrosiaster defines
creational imago Dei in terms of Adams unique position as human
prototype, imitating God as origin of the universe: one manlike God
creates one Godlike man. Gods creative priority is thus mirrored
by Adams carnal causality of the human race, Eve included. In
consequence, Adam transmits his theomorphic privilege to all human males,
whereas all human females inherit Eves derived subservience.
Ambrosiasters texts are regularly cited in medieval canon law, in
order to corroborate womens subordinate status. Surviving in Corpus
Iuris Canonici (1582), they functioned until the Codex of
l917.(13)

Ambrosiasters male imago Dei is in medieval exegesis
transformed to affirm that men are Godlike in the first place,
principaliter, because of their creational precedence, but not exclusively.
In this version, Ambrosiasters comparing of theocentrism and
androcentrism is rehearsed in scholastic anthropology. Bonaventura (died 1274)
states that human Godlikeness is equal as to its essence in both man and woman,
although accidentally greater in a man because of his exemplary maleness.(14)
Also referring to I Cor. 11:7, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) presents a less
sophisticated variant of Ambrosiasters parallel of monotheism and
monogenism:

But
as regards a secondary point, Gods image is found in man in a way in
which it is not found in woman; for man is the beginning and end of woman, just
as God is the beginning and end of all creation.(15)

Unfortunately, the medieval blending of Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian
sources curtails patristic feminism. This regression becomes
manifest in scholastic arguments against womens ordination to the
priesthood. Thomas Aquinas use of Aristotelian socio-biology, at the time
considered very up-to-date, makes his explanation of female inferiority
inapplicable for a present defence of exclusively male priesthood; it is
therefore discarded.(16) On the contrary, Bonaventuras affirmation of
femaleness as impeding Christlike representation is still
repeated.(17)

Bonaventuras reasoning clearly demonstrates the logical
connection between androcentric typology and non-theomorphic femaleness. He
invokes I Cor. 11:7 in the sense of mens exclusive Godlikeness qua
human males. This indispensable requirement for priestly ordination, both de
iure and de facto, follows from mens creational precedence.
Consequently, subordinate females are unable to represent Christ the Mediator,
who was incarnated in the male sex:

It
is impossible to be ordained without possessing Gods image, because this
sacrament makes man (homo) somehow divine by sharing divine power. Only
the male (vir) is the image of God by virtue of his sex, according to I
Cor. 11:7. In consequence, woman (mulier) can in no manner be ordained
... The reason for this is not so much the Churchs decision as the
non-congruity of priesthood with the female sex. In this sacrament the person
ordained signifies Christ as mediator. Because this Mediator existed only in
the male sex (virilis sexus), He can be signified only through the male
sex. In consequence, only men have the possibility of receiving priestly
ordination, since they alone can naturally represent and actually carry the
sign of the Mediator by receiving the sacramental
character.(18)

Womens incapacity of cultic mediation between God and humankind
results from their lack of Godlikeness qua females. Creationally
theo-morphic in spite of their sub-male sex, women cannot represent
Christs perfect maleness as priests. The traditional disparity between
Godhead and femaleness remains fundamental, obviously demonstrated by
womens combined corporeal and symbolic deficiency (impedimentum
sexus), resulting from their derived and subordinate womanhood.

In
early patristic doctrine, androcentric typology corresponds to the initial
theme of Christomorphic maleness, where women become salvationally Christlike
by gender reversal. Asexual definition of imago Dei emerges later and is
applied to insert women as Godlike already from creation, despite their
non-theomorphic femaleness. Typological gender models survive through this
second stage by combining asexual God-likeness and andromorphic excellence.
Bonaventuras argumentation is especially important because he so clearly
connects the two, logically incoherent themes, when he argues both for
womens sexless imago Dei and against female ordination.
Christocentric typology is here used as a restrictive device, making women
incapable of representing Christs incarnated humanity and redeeming
divinity as priests. Their cultic incapacity is thus explained in terms
parallel to womens lacking representation qua females of their
Godgiven, genderfree image quality. In contrast, mens primary sex
symbolizes both their asexual imago Dei in male disguise and
Christs perfect manhood, making them capable of sharing divine power as
priests.

III. Feminist Interpretation

Twentieth-century theology continues the church Fathers
ingenious backdating of redemptive equality to the order of creation by
invoking human equivalence to abolish hierarchical structures of race, class
and gender. Feminist theologians often equate the evils of racism, classism and
sexism, to be overcome by Christian liberation. This common ranking implies
inaccurate knowledge of doctrinal history, since creational gender hierarchy
has always been affirmed as Godwilled in traditional theology, to be dismissed
only recently as normative for society. In fact, Jewish ethnocentricity
was relinquished when Christianity spread to the Graeco-Roman world. Slavery
was not sanctioned in terms of Gods creative order, but accepted as a
necessary consequence of the first sin, to cease when economically feasible. In
contrast, the sexism of creational male priority was unanimously defined as
ordained by God. Womens finality qua female human beings was
exclusively interpreted in terms of their auxiliary role in procreation. This
basic malecentredness is succinctly expressed by Augustine when he states that
both in work and in friendship would another human male (masculus) have
been more congenial company for Adam.(19) It is of note that this traditional
justification for female existence is still rehearsed in magisterial documents,
where motherhood is defined as womens specific vocation.(20)

From
the 20th-century viewpoint of Atlantic civilization, androcentric gender models
are rejected as oppressive for women. It is important to remember that in late
Antique and medieval culture this perspective was reversed, in that
womens salvational equality resulted from Gods enhancement of a
priori accepted inferior femaleness to the fully human status of male or
asexual perfection. Therefore, patristic displacement of womens
redemptive Godlikeness back to creation provides an indispensable basis for
present creational feminism.

A main
target of feminist critique is the traditional interaction between andromorphic
Godhead and theomorphic maleness, with corresponding split between divinity and
femaleness. This androcentric inculturation of Christian God-language still
determines the whole framework of doctrine and symbolism. Despite the new
holistic imago Dei, where both women and men are defined as fully
Godlike qua male or female human beings, God is overwhelmingly described
as manlike or meta-sexual. Mancentred typology remains basic in Catholic and
Orthodox Christology, ecclesiology and Mariology. In fact, such transposition
of gender hierarchy from creation to salvation is irreconcilable with
20th-century theological anthropology and will therefore become obsolete. It
follows that the contemporary collapse of male dominance in Western European
and North American civilization represents the greatest challenge to theology
and ecclesiastical institutions which has ever occurred in church history. A
complete reformulation of God-language and religious symbolism is
necessary to ensure the survival of Christendom in post-patriarchal culture. In
this process, patristic theology can serve as model for new inculturation. The
church Fathers intention of verbalising their experience of God in
terms comprehensible to their time and place is imitable. On the other hand,
much of the patristic doctrinal content is no longer viable, precisely
because of its successful inculturation, formulated with anthropological
presuppositions now superseded. Consequently, tenacious repetition of the
church Fathers outdated conclusions is contrary to a validation of the
sound aspects of Christian doctrine.

As of
today, Judaeo-Christian tradition has been verbalized throughout three millenia
of shifting socio-cultural contexts: Jewish, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic and
quite recently, North and Latin American, now followed by Asian and African.
From my perspective of historical theology, I consider both Scripture
(elaborated during ca. 1000 years) and biblical interpretation (worked out
during nearly 2000 years) as parts of the same inculturating process.
Therefore, I cannot endorse the various attempts to consolidate womens
Godlike, and consequently full religious capability by recourse to Scripture
alone (sola scriptura). Many feminist theologians strive to renovate
Christian God-language by invoking sections of Scripture for liberational
purposes. This exegetical approach, which I call sola pars
scripturae (part of Scripture alone), I find futile. The canonical
Bible has to be affronted in its entirety, since this predominant androcentric
whole has determined the formation of Christianity. As an historian of
ideas, I am also at odds with feminist theology which believes the scriptural
base to be less malecentred than subsequent patristic and medieval
interpretation. The gradual inclusion of women in fully Godlike humanity, as
elaborated through doctrinal history, clearly demonstrates the opposite.

Following the patristic idea of divine pedagogy (pronoia
paideusis), I consider both biblical and exegetical inculturation as
instrumental in Gods continuous disclosure (revelatio continua).
During the Renaissance, this concept was reformulated by a forerunner of
20th-century sociology of knowledge, the German cardinal Nicolaus Cusanus. He
defines the revelatory interplay between Creator and creation as temporal
unfolding (explicatio) of Gods eternal enfolding
(complicatio). Nicolaus applies these terms in order to verbalize his
enlightened insight (docta ignorantia): All human experience of God is
necessarily conjectural, because it is determined by continually
changing historical circumstances. Centered on Christ, this persistent dialogue
between God and humankind is consequently acted out as incarnated revelation,
that is in a manner understandable for human beings (humano
modo).(21)

From a
feminist viewpoint, this human mode of both Scripture and Christian tradition
is perceived as inadequate in terms of exclusive male-gendered verbalization,
predominantly limited to mens experience of God. Feminist efforts to
trace an early Christian Her-story, before, through and beyond New
Testament texts, are therefore essential.(22) Many sources pertaining to
womens existence have been destroyed, hidden, manipulated or are still
neglected. The few female writings which survive nave been controlled, selected
and transmitted by male ecclesiastical authority. Independent and/or deviating
women were normally repressed, condemned and even burned at the stake, like
Marguerite Porete in 1310. Contemporary Womens Studies are now
bringing these creative and courageous church Mothers to light, valued as
exemplary constructors of female-gendered God-language.(23) In order to become
a fully human discourse on God, theology must express both womens and
mens religious experience.

In
accordance with my concept of Gods revelation as continuously unfolding,
I do not share the need to corroborate female equivalence by postulating a
greater influence of, and freedom for, women in emerging Christianity. This
sort of golden age dream affects some feminist theologians, who
repeat the medieval and Renaissance manner of chastising churchly abuses by
invoking an assumed earlier integrity (ecclesia primitiva),

The
current feminist application of marginal texts, such as apocryphical
literature and more or less heterodox material, is even less
propitious. In fact, most of these sources aggravate womens gender
reversal or defeminized asexuality, as means of achieving male or sexless human
perfection.(24)

In my
opinion, a fruitful feminist theology must be inspired by Catholic
understanding of the interplay between Scripture and tradition, and guided by
Orthodox belief in the Holy Spirit as acting through human history. Both
visions presuppose what I summarily call optimistic anthropology,
in the sense that creation is not totally alienated after the original fall and
that redemption is fulfilled by divine and human interaction. The Greek
church Fathers doctrine of Christs incarnated and resurrected
humanity as causing Godlike human wholeness (theosis), is of exemplary
value for feminist God-language. Liberated from its conjectural presuppositions
of perfect manhood and asexual excellence, this patristic anthropology can
bridge the subsisting barrier between Godhead and womanhood, thereby conforming
to the new holistic definition of human Godlikeness. When both women and
men are valued as theomorphic, God is correspondingly to be described by both
male and female metaphors. The sparse and atypical imagery of God as womanlike,
already found in Scripture and tradition, provides useful support.(25) When
divine totality is verbalized in terms of diversified human wholeness,
androcentric gender models lose significance in Christian doctrine and
symbolism. In consequence. Godlike womens capacity to serve as Christlike
priests will be fully recognized. The ordination of women marks an ecumenical
achievement!

Dear visitor, you are welcome to use our material. However: building up and maintaining this site costs money. We are a Charity and work mainly with volunteers, but find it difficult to pay our overheads. Please, become a Friend or support us with a donation. Also, as some of you recommended to us, we are exploring how to generate income by advertising. Please, support us in this effort and send us your suggestions. John Wijngaards